ROBERT E. BRIDGE AND LESLIE E. ENSIGN MAY 5, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. BYRNE of New York, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1620] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1620) for the relief of Robert E. Bridge and Leslie E. Ensign, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $308.08 to Robert E. Bridge and to pay the sum of $272.56 to Leslie E. Ensign, both of Hamilton, Wash. The payment of such sums shall be in settlement of all claims against the United States for reimbursement for property lost when the boat they were using in the course of their duties as employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service capsized in Alaska on August 22, 1947, without fault on their part. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Secretary of the Interior rendered a report dated March 18, 1949, and recommends favorable consideration and the committee, after careful consideration, recommends the enactment of the bill. The facts are set forth in detail by the Department of the Interior, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. EMANUEL Celler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. CELLER: You have requested a report from this Department on H. R. 1620 a bill for the relief of Robert E. Bridge and Leslie E. Ensign. I recommend that the bill be enacted. The bill would authorize the payment of $308.08 to Robert E. Bridge and $272.56 to Leslie E. Engsign in full settlement of their claims against the United States for reimbursement because of the loss of their personal property as a result of the accidental capsizing of a Government-owned outboard motorboat in the Coleville River, Alaska, on August 22, 1947, while Messrs. Bridge and Ensign. were on official duty for the Fish and Wildlife Service. No fault was attributable to Messrs. Bridge and Ensign in connection with the accident. On April 12, 1948, this Department considered the claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U. S. C., 1946 ed., sec. 921 et seq). As there apparently was no element of negligence on the part of any Government personnel to which the capsizing of the boat could be attributed, the Department was compelled to deny the claims. The Secretary of the Interior has no authority comparable to that vested in the Secretary of the Army by the Military Personnel Claims Act of 1945 (31 U. S. C., 1946 ed., sec. 222c), under which the Secretary of the Army may pay property-loss claims of civilian employees and of military personnel of the Department of the Army. From time to time, personal property belonging to employees of this Department is lost or damaged as an incident to their service and without fault on their part. Such incidents most frequently occur in connection with field work performed in isolated areas. National Park Service rangers, survey parties of the Bureau of Land Management, and working parties of the Alaska Road Commission, for example, perform their duties under such conditions. Mr. Bridge and Mr. Ensign, the claimants under H. R. 1620, were in a remote section of Alaska when their boat capsized. It is impracticable for such employees to carry insurance on their personal property, and, while losses of such property incident to service and not frequent, they do impose a severe burden on the employees concerned. Because such losses are attributable to the conditions under which the employees perform their duties or to the hazards of their occupations, I believe that such losses should be borne by the Government. There are enclosed photostatic copies of statements made by the employees in respect to the incident covered by H. R. 1620 and copies of lists of the property lost. The items of property for which claims are made appear to be those which men engaged on such an assignment ordinarily would carry, and the value attributed to the items seems to be reasonable. Several other employees of the Department have lost personal property in situations similar to that out of which the claims covered by H. R. 1620 arose, and I would like to bring them to the attention of the committee at this time. They are as follows: (1) Walter Brooks, Lawrence A. Hatchett, Deloss H. Johanson, Oliver Onkka, Tom Popovich, and Ralph Soberg, employees of the Alaska Road Commission, lost personal tools and other personal property in June 1945 as the result of a forest fire which destroyed a camp maintained in connection with road maintenance work on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Their claims are in the amounts of $101.70, $462.10, $47.90, $34.79, $50, and $454.60, respectively. The cause of the fire was not determined. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of these employees or any other Government personnel. (2) Chester W. Diess, Wilbern E. Lossing, and John Zinowske, employees of the Alaska Road Commission, lost their tools in a fire on May 23, 1947, in the blacksmith shop of the Alaska Road Commission at Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska. Their claims are in the amounts of $105.12, $62.55, and $20.86, respectively. The cause of the fire was undetermined. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of Government personnel. (3) Cleo C. Reeves, Floyd L. Murphy, and Fabian P. Durand, employees of the Alaska Road Commission, lost their personal effects as the result of the capsizing of a ferryboat operated by a licensed ferryman while they were being transported to their work across the Susitna River in Alaska on August 12, 1945. Their claims are in the amounts of $150, $410.10, and $160, respectively. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of any Government employee. The ferryman was an independent contractor and was not acting in an official capacity in the service of the United States. None of the claims described in the numbered paragraphs above could be allowed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, because there was no evidence that the loss was caused by the negligence of an employee of the Government. In all instances, however, the circumstances under which the employees' property was lost were such that this Department believes the Government should reimburse the employees for their losses. If the committee wishes to consider these claims, the Department will transmit to the committee copies of the pertinent papers. The Bureau of the Budget has advised this Department that it has no objection to the presentation of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Oscar L. CHAPMAN, Acting Secretary of the Interior. Congressman HENRY M. JACKSON, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. HAMILTON, WASH., May 10, 1948. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: During August 1947 while we were employed by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska we had the misfortune of losing our entire outfit of personal property valued at $308.08 and $272.56, respectively. Details of the accident will be found in the enclosed letters. All our efforts to gain reimbursement for our losses have so far been unsuccessful. Enclosed is all correspondence which we have sent the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the loss, and all the replies wh have received from them. In the letter of April 12, 1948, from the Solicitor he states that he believes our claims are meritorious, but under present laws he is unable to pay our claims. He further states that there is (or was) pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee a bill which would authorize the head of a department to determine meritorious claims for compensation because of damage to, or loss of, property occurring in connection with their service for the Government. He states further that if the bill were enacted he would be glad to recommend favorable consideration of our claims. What information can you give us concerning the proposed legislation referred to by the Solicitor? If it has not passed Congress, is there any other way by which we might gain reimbursement for our losses? In the past I have heard of special bills being sent to Congress to gain compensation for just claims which were not covered explicitly by some law. Do you think that this would apply in our case? Any information you can give us in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, ROBERT E. BRIDGE. P. S. Any correspondence concerning this matter should be sent to the above address, the home address of Mr. Bridge. Mr. G. B. KELEZ, SEATTLE 5, WASH., February 2, 1948. Chief, Alaska Investigations, Seattle 2, Wash. DEAR MR. KELEZ: This is in reply to your request for more information concerning the loss of property due to an accidentally overturned skiff in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska last summer while I was in the employment of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Robert Bridge and I were assigned the Colville-Grosvenor Lakes stream survey territory, the same area we had had the previous year. Since the trip was to be of a possible 30 days duration in uninhabited country where help is unobtainable in case of accident, preparations were started well in advance of the departure date. Also, the check-off list, which included such items as life preservers, first aid kits, etc., was followed explicitly. The boat we chose for the trip was new last spring and, of course, in excellent condition. We left Brooks Lake, our base camp, on August 14, 1947. During the next 6 days we had traveled up to the forks of Colville River, a distance of approximately 100 miles by boat and outboard motor. Having finished our duties on Colville River by the morning of August 22 we packed our gear in the boat and started downstream. For about 3 miles below the forks, the river has a very fast current and follows a very crooked course. On the outside of every turn the current has undermined the bank until the trees closest to the bank have fallen out over the river. In such a river it is impossible to use the outboard going downstream because one has too much speed and too little control to make the turns; so we started drifting down, stern first, with one man at the oars-the accepted method of descending streams of this type. Before starting out we had checked the oars and all other equipment and had stowed everything aboard in such a fashion that the man at the oars would not be hampered by anything being in his way, because we were aware of the consequences if the boat should get out of control at any time. We had not anticipated any particular difficulty in the trip down the river. We had had no trouble the year before and the weather was suitable for travel; also the river was not exceptionally high for that time of the year. About 11 a. m. we approached one of the more abrupt turns in the river. Mr. Bridge was rowing and I was sitting in the stern, watching for submerged logs and boulders. The sharp curvature of the turn necessitated several vigorous pulls on the oars toward the inside of the turn. We were doing very nicely, about two or three more would have put us in the clear of a succession of small cottonwood trees that were leaning out over the river. During one of the strokes the downstream oarblade was caught by the swirling current in such a fashion, that, between the downward thrust of the current on the blade and the force applied to the handle, the oarlock was forced upward to the extent that it climbed out of the oarlock block. A situation which might occur to anyone under these conditions. A moment after the oarlock came out, before either of us had time to replace it, the boat struck one of the trees that was leaning out over the river at an angle of approximately 75°. The boat immediately swung broadside to the tree and the force of the current against the side of the boat made the boat do a complete roll under the tree, throwing its occupants and contents into the river. Then the boat drifted downstream through a narrow channel where it rolled over several times more and finally came to rest upside down on a bar in the middle of the river where it was inaccessible to us because of deep water on either side. We hiked out to Colville Lake and were flown back to Brooks Lake where we assembled another outfit and returned to the scene of the accident in an attempt to salvage the lost equipment. We recovered the boat and articles that floated or hung up in the brush before they sank. We did not, however, recover any of our personal equipment and we feel that since it was needed in our work we are justified in submitting a claim to reimburse our loss. Enclosed you will find a list of the equipment I lost. Since most of the items on the list were in perfect to new condition I evaluated them according to standard new prices; on the remaining items a replacement value has been set. The list may seem superfluous, especially with respect to clothing but due to the uncertainty of the weather at that time of the year adequate foul-weather gear must be carried. The fishing tackle was to provide the only fresh food we would have on the trip and the .38 revolver was to prevent accidents with the bear which are quite numerous on the streams during the spawning season. None of the items listed were insured. I am hoping this will suffice to provide the information requested. LESLIE E. ENSIGN. Personal equipment of Leslie E. Ensign lost 11 a. m., August 22, 1947, at time of capsizing of Government launch Personal equipment of Leslie E. Ensign lost 11 a. m.; August 22, 1947, at time of capsizing of Government launch-Continued I certify that the above list constitutes the personal equipment lost while in the conduct of official business on August 22, 1947. LESLIE E. ENSIGN. STATE OF WASHINGTON, County of King. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of February 1948. My commission expires November 18, 1950. Mr. GEORGE B. KELEZ, HAMILTON, WASH., October 27, 1947. Chief, Alaska Fisheries Investigations, Seattle, Wash. DEAR MR. KELEZ: Last August 22 while Leslie E. Ensign and I were on official duty for the Alaska Fisheries Investigations conducting a survey of the red salmon spawning streams of the Coville-Grosvenor Lakes area of the Naknek River system, we had the misfortune of capsizing our boat and losing our entire outfit. The accident occurred while we were descending the Coville River which empties into Lake Coville. As this river has a very swift current and numerous sharp turns it was infeasible to use the outboard motor in the descent of the stream. Instead we were drifting downstream stern first and I was guiding the boat by rowing. We came to a very sharp corner where the current had undermined the roots of several cottonwood trees causing them to hang far out over the channel. Just as I was rowing hardest to guide the boat into the narrow channel between the treetops and shore the oarlock came out of the oarlock block, and likewies the oar out of the oarlock, causing me to lose control of the boat. Before I had time to replace the oarlock and oar and get into rowing position the current had swept us against an overhanging tree overturning the boat and emptying most of its contents into the river. After swimming to shore I made every effort to rescue the boat and equipment but failed as the nature and swiftness of the river made it impossible to do so. The boat drifted downstream approximately 200 yards from the scene of the accident and struck another tree and again overturned and remained in that position while floating downstream another 200 yards, more or less, where it came to rest on a bar in the center of the river. By that time all the equipment which the boat had carried had been lost. After securing another boat a thorough search was made from the accident scene to the mouth of the river. The boat and a small amount of Government equipment was recovered, but none of our own personal belongings. Enclosed is a list of the personal equipment which was lost by me in the abovementioned boat accident and the value of each item. Is there any way in which I could be reimbursed for such loss being that it occurred while I was on official duty? Yours very truly, H. Repts., 81-1, vol. 3- -24 ROBERT E. Bridge. |